Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 462]

link ######?

One would think if he told you exactly what you wanted to hear, you would be posting it here, bragging it up, sticking it in our

faces. But you haven't. Which pretty much sums up what we suspect.

 

Not at all, fukstain. I know exactly what would happen if I posted it here (and the word isn't link you idiot: you don't link an email): you'd do what Nikki already did without me even posting it: claim I altered something.

 

I'm waiting for important times to post what he's said, so I can shove your foot in your own ass - and then Nikki can verify that what I post is exactly what he wrote. Just keep talking.

[GettnHuge 2]

Not at all, fukstain. I know exactly what would happen if I posted it here (and the word isn't link you idiot: you don't link an email): you'd do what Nikki already did without me even posting it: claim I altered something.

 

I'm waiting for important times to post what he's said, so I can shove your foot in your own ass - and then Nikki can verify that what I post is exactly what he wrote. Just keep talking.

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_S5_k42lzM4w/SG1du5BGjDI/AAAAAAAAAAc/5nmIAnvBGso/s1600-h/shots22.JPG

There's a linked email, fukstain.

your turn.

[IMMensaMind 462]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_S5_k42lzM4w/SG1du5BGjDI/AAAAAAAAAAc/5nmIAnvBGso/s1600-h/shots22.JPG

There's a linked email, fukstain.

your turn.

 

Oh yes. I'm going to MS Paint a screenshot of an email, then scratch out my email, then host it in my photobucket account...for you.

 

Yes. Definitely.

 

And then not be accused even once of simply altering what he wrote.

 

Yes. Fo Sho.

 

No. I will post what he has said at appropriate times when you and yours have stuck your feet in your faces, and then troutsnatch will have the ability to verify it with Shapiro if she wishes.

 

And she will wish, because this is very personal to her. And to you.

 

I'll give you a hint just to get you going. He didn't say one single thing that surprised me.

 

Just for sh!ts and giggles: just what do you think my positions are again?

[GettnHuge 2]

Oh yes. I'm going to MS Paint a screenshot of an email, then scratch out my email, then host it in my photobucket account...for you.

 

Yes. Definitely.

 

And then not be accused even once of simply altering what he wrote.

 

Yes. Fo Sho.

 

No. I will post what he has said at appropriate times when you and yours have stuck your feet in your faces, and then troutsnatch will have the ability to verify it with Shapiro if she wishes.

 

And she will wish, because this is very personal to her. And to you.

 

 

take screenshot

post screenshot

link screenshot

takes just a minute, most of your replies take 20 mins. So go ahead and make a 19 minute reply and link the email.

[nikki2200 4]

Not at all, fukstain. I know exactly what would happen if I posted it here (and the word isn't link you idiot: you don't link an email): you'd do what Nikki already did without me even posting it: claim I altered something.

 

I'm waiting for important times to post what he's said, so I can shove your foot in your own ass - and then Nikki can verify that what I post is exactly what he wrote. Just keep talking.

 

So you're still working on your strategy to "win" the thread? How pathetic. If we are having an intellectually honest conversation about this, just post what he said to you so we can all see and learn from it. Isn't that the point of the thread? Learning?

 

Also, WTF are you talking about me verifying what he said to you? You actually think I'm going to ask a professor to get stuck in the middle of a junior high school he said/she said drama? Sorry, that's not my style.

[nikki2200 4]

And she will wish, because this is very personal to her. And to you.

 

How is this personal to me at all? You think I think about this when I'm not reading FFT? Not even a little... You, however, I can imagine going to bed at night foaming at the mouth thinking you won something.

 

Honestly at this point I think it's funny. And this is a retarded fantasy football message board. I'd have to be pretty pathetic to have any personal feelings about anything that happens here. Maybe that's what you don't get about this place. It's supposed to be a fun form of entertainment. PERSONALLY, I will thank you for giving me a lot of it recently.

[IMMensaMind 462]

So you're still working on your strategy to "win" the thread? How pathetic. If we are having an intellectually honest conversation about this, just post what he said to you so we can all see and learn from it. Isn't that the point of the thread? Learning?

 

oh yeah...that's what this thread has been about. Learning. I'm not teaching you, Nikki: you're actually already closed off to it. You think that Behe et al have been refuted. Let me tell you that Shapiro doesn't think so; not by a long shot.

 

Let me tell you something frankly: the only real issue that Shapiro has with Behe is Behe's insistence in bringing the supernatural into the equation.

 

Now, I disagree with Shapiro wrt to Behe's characterization, but I do not have the benefit of really knowing what Behe was all about 15 years ago, and Shapiro's 1996 review of Darwin's Black Box" focused nearly exclusively on the issue of being forced as a scientist to dismiss any possibility of consideration of supernatural anything - he calls that "unscientific". The rest of his critique....wasn't a critique. He's quite complimentary of Behe's work.

 

In short, he sees something in it that you have clearly dismissed. Do you really think he would have been complimentary if Behe's entire ideology was to be dismissed?

 

I can see how Shapiro and Behe have become friends. They have far more ideologically in common than they do the opposite. I believe it's very likely that Shapiro has affected how Behe approaches this topic, and I see Behe actually stressing that the ID answer could be natural, and not 'super'natural.

 

And he's right about that. That's always been true of ID, regardless what Behe himself has stressed. I can see how easy it is to want to interject personal beliefs into a scientific discussion.

 

Shapiro is not a fan of Richard Dawkins (nor am I). He's very critical of him and his positions.

 

Also, WTF are you talking about me verifying what he said to you? You actually think I'm going to ask a professor to get stuck in the middle of a junior high school he said/she said drama? Sorry, that's not my style.

 

You can actually simply ask him the same questions. You'll get the same answers. There is no "stuck in the middle" of anything. And - since you've injected yourself into this "he said/she said" BS by insinuating that I'd change anything he wrote, you caused your own problem.

[IMMensaMind 462]

How is this personal to me at all? You think I think about this when I'm not reading FFT? Not even a little... You, however, I can imagine going to bed at night foaming at the mouth thinking you won something.

 

Honestly at this point I think it's funny. And this is a retarded fantasy football message board. I'd have to be pretty pathetic to have any personal feelings about anything that happens here. Maybe that's what you don't get about this place. It's supposed to be a fun form of entertainment. PERSONALLY, I will thank you for giving me a lot of it recently.

 

I already established how you made this personal. Most of your posts were personal. That's what I meant; that's what you meant - and your last sentence is obviously true. This is personal to you.

[IMMensaMind 462]

take screenshot

post screenshot

link screenshot

takes just a minute, most of your replies take 20 mins. So go ahead and make a 19 minute reply and link the email.

 

Nikki didn't do that with her email. In fact, IIRC, it appears as though she scrubbed her questions of him completely off the entire exchange.

[GettnHuge 2]

Nikki didn't do that with her email. In fact, IIRC, it appears as though she scrubbed her questions of him completely off the entire exchange.

 

Thus far she hasn't shown any inkling of being a two faced liar. So I tend to believe her.

You...

[IMMensaMind 462]

Thus far she hasn't shown any inkling of being a two faced liar. So I tend to believe her.

You...

 

That's all relative. So far, she has lied about my positions, and you haven't been honest in your motives in this thread.

 

So don't be a hypocrite.

[GettnHuge 2]

That's all relative. So far, she has lied about my positions, and you haven't been honest in your motives in this thread.

 

So don't be a hypocrite.

 

email link?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Before, I posted Behe's rebuttal of Ken Miller's attack on ID's concept of IC - and I called the argument that the TTSS came after the flagella 'compelling'. The word 'compelling' is now moot: Behe's rebuttal has now now been scientifically proven. I've found research that absolutely destroys Ken Miller's claim of TTSS disproving IC:

 

Ken Miller made 3 major errors:

1) He emphasised co-option (borrowing or re-using parts), but note above that it is not relevant to Behe's argument, which is about the evolution of the system as a whole; irrespective of where the parts come from. You could possibly build a pram from bike parts and a deckchair, but it wouldnt be easy.

2) He characterised the Type 3 Secretory System (TTSS) as if it was an evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. We now know that actually the *reverse* is the case. This paper: Mol. Biol. Evol. 25(9):2069–2076. 2008, shows that TTSS's have been caught in the process of degenerating from flagella.

[The flagellum needs a pump in its base for the construction of the outside parts - by an amazing process which is well worth exploring, but not here. Once a flagellum has been rendered non-functional, it gradually degenerates to the TTSS, showing that NS is not operating, which in turn shows that the intermediate stages are functionally redundant. In this particular case, the TTSS finds an accidental function by feeding its host organism (spewing out otherwise useless proteins). Others become pathogenic. But the *design* originated as part of the flagellum.]

3) He explained that evolution must be gradual; that parts must come together in stages 2 or 3 at a time. He presents this as if it was an argument against Behe, but Behe actually agrees with this. What Ken neglected to mention is that this implies that there must have been at least 25 intermediates that are not functionally redundant. Yet he presents only one, the TTSS, and that actually owes its existence to the flagellum in the first place! Without these 25 intermediates, NS is not even a plausible explanation.

 

So Nikki: your core rebuttal is that Behe has been proven wrong. I just established - Scientifically - that Miller is wrong. Which makes Behe's theory the standing theory. You know one of the primary indicators of a strong theory? It can predict with accuracy. Behe is doing exactly that.

 

Are you still learning?

 

I'm posting this for Frank, as you believed that this doesn't exist: this is a peer-reviewed article, and it links Dembski's concept of active information to the alleged evolution of the flagellum in terms of probabilities of random formation of the components needed versus designing the components to fit together. Unless you don't understand what is being said in this article.

 

and another...

 

and another...

 

Peer review. You axed for it, you got it. It is absolutely critical that the mathematical bases for ID be established, as (if you're a deep enough thinker), you realize that this discussion of random vs. designed comes down to probability. Dembski here establishes the parameters for the algorithmns needed to determine accurate calculations of liklihood of accident or intent wrt genetic cellular design. "Conservation of Information" is a key tenet in ID theory. Let's also remember that a central characteristic of a theory's strength is its ability to predict. Dembski and Behe predicted that what conventional science was calling "junk DNA" they were predicting was specific and necessary. They are being proven correct, when the conventional school of thought was the opposite.

 

ID theory allows for Design as well as Evolutionary and other purely Materialistic theories, but says we need to actually calculate probabilities in order to gain a degree of objectivity. It is those probabilities that Dembski has now had published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

ID will win this argument, and in the process, shed from it the misapprehensions many have had about its religious ties, purposefully promulgated by those with a political agenda to defeat it. Complicit are those unwitting religious types who are so desperate to validate their participation in the public vernacular that they view ID as a new hi-tech way to proselytize - dull-headedly stomping out the very vehicle that will open the public's mind to their point of view.

 

But don't worry: that will pass. The legitimacy of this scientific pursuit will find its way on its own.

[IMMensaMind 462]

email link?

 

I don't bow to someone who calls me two faced, or a liar, as I am neither. Your misimpressions are intentional, sloppy, and unlikely to change even in the fact of the evidence - as you have no intention to actually consider that you've misunderstood what was said, even if I've contributed to that to a degree by being less than razor sharp in elucidating my views: a short-coming which I've apologized for several times in this thread.

 

The problem is now yours.

[IMMensaMind 462]

If Darwinism fails, then “design broadly construed is the alternative.” - Richard Dawkins

 

My goodness: whatever will you all do?

 

Shapiro is holding the axe that is chopping the Darwinian tree you know. In point of fact, Behe and Dembski are as well - but let's just go with what you'll admit right now.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Religion is for cowards who are afraid to live their lives.

 

Hth?

And die their deaths...

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

I'm posting this for Frank, as you believed that this doesn't exist: this is a peer-reviewed article, and it links Dembski's concept of active information to the alleged evolution of the flagellum in terms of probabilities of random formation of the components needed versus designing the components to fit together. Unless you don't understand what is being said in this article.

 

and another...

 

and another...

 

Peer review. You axed for it, you got it. It is absolutely critical that the mathematical bases for ID be established, as (if you're a deep enough thinker), you realize that this discussion of random vs. designed comes down to probability. Dembski here establishes the parameters for the algorithmns needed to determine accurate calculations of liklihood of accident or intent wrt genetic cellular design. "Conservation of Information" is a key tenet in ID theory. Let's also remember that a central characteristic of a theory's strength is its ability to predict. Dembski and Behe predicted that what conventional science was calling "junk DNA" they were predicting was specific and necessary. They are being proven correct, when the conventional school of thought was the opposite.

 

ID theory allows for Design as well as Evolutionary and other purely Materialistic theories, but says we need to actually calculate probabilities in order to gain a degree of objectivity. It is those probabilities that Dembski has now had published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

ID will win this argument, and in the process, shed from it the misapprehensions many have had about its religious ties, purposefully promulgated by those with a political agenda to defeat it. Complicit are those unwitting religious types who are so desperate to validate their participation in the public vernacular that they view ID as a new hi-tech way to proselytize - dull-headedly stomping out the very vehicle that will open the public's mind to their point of view.

 

But don't worry: that will pass. The legitimacy of this scientific pursuit will find its way on its own.

 

Specified complexity is another argument from ignorance, like irreducible complexity, which relies on mathematical models where Dembski defines a limit on what can occur by random chance alone (mutation causing genetic drift). It ignores the driving force of natural selection (a product of the organism AND the environment - perhaps the latter is your "creator') in Darwinian evolution. There are nearly infinite variables in the equation needed to determine the chance of your eye (as part of an organism) arising from the primordial soup. Not knowing an equation which accounts for all these variables is not a proxy for god/God/creator IMO. Though I have a post-graduate degree in science, I don't pretend to understand all the equations in the papers you cite, so it is hard to critique them specifically. What is your background in mathematics Mensa? Do you truly understand the model in the papers? If so, please explain it for the shallow thinkers trolling this thread, myself included.

 

To be fair, you've taught me a lot about the lexicon of ID. Unfortunately, you still haven't described a credible experiment which provides reproducible data supporting ID's hypothesis. They all rely on the teleologic conclusion that biological phenomena which cannot be completely explained (now), can reasonably only be expected to occur because of a higher power. On the other hand, if you'd like reproducible scientific evidence of evolution in a rapidly replicating organism, all you need is a a few HIV virions, antiviral drugs and cell culture, as I described ~20 pages ago.

 

Posting the nebulous Shapiro email + messages of support from the FF masses would bolster your credibility in this thread. If you want to convince people of your position, it seems odd to withhold these tidbits. If you are convinced none of us will believe/discredit you anyway, why are you arguing at all?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Specified complexity is another argument from ignorance, like irreducible complexity, which relies on mathematical models where Dembski defines a limit on what can occur by random chance alone (mutation causing genetic drift). It ignores the driving force of natural selection (a product of the organism AND the environment - perhaps the latter is your "creator') in Darwinian evolution. There are nearly infinite variables in the equation needed to determine the chance of your eye (as part of an organism) arising from the primordial soup. Not knowing an equation which accounts for all these variables is not a proxy for god/God/creator IMO. Though I have a post-graduate degree in science, I don't pretend to understand all the equations in the papers you cite, so it is hard to critique them specifically. What is your background in mathematics Mensa? Do you truly understand the model in the papers? If so, please explain it for the shallow thinkers trolling this thread, myself included.

 

To be fair, you've taught me a lot about the lexicon of ID. Unfortunately, you still haven't described a credible experiment which provides reproducible data supporting ID's hypothesis. They all rely on the teleologic conclusion that biological phenomena which cannot be completely explained (now), can reasonably only be expected to occur because of a higher power. On the other hand, if you'd like reproducible scientific evidence of evolution in a rapidly replicating organism, all you need is a a few HIV virions, antiviral drugs and cell culture, as I described ~20 pages ago.

 

Posting the nebulous Shapiro email + messages of support from the FF masses would bolster your credibility in this thread. If you want to convince people of your position, it seems odd to withhold these tidbits. If you are convinced none of us will believe/discredit you anyway, why are you arguing at all?

 

You're making it too complicated IMO, and throwing in a required conclusion (in your mind): if you want to call and mean that an Intelligence who designed life to work as it does is a "higher power", you can do so, but you skirt to the religious, and that's where ID has gotten in trouble. I'm really trying to have people understand that ID is no more religious than Darwinian Evolution, which also gets in trouble when Atheists glom on to its central tenet of random chaos.

 

Because what I write that Shapiro has written to me can be validated, and since it's obvious that nearly everyone (including you) constantly misconstrue (intentionally or otherwise) what I say and believe, I've decided that the best way to counter falsehoods is to merely bring up supported points as their statements stand in such stark contrast to what is claimed in this thread that there is no possible way anyone could deny mistaking intent.

 

This centers around people claiming that I do not understand what Shapiro's research actually means, or the whole "bridging the gap" thing. Speaking of bridging the gap (which is exactly what Shapiro's research does, despite the squeals from the other side claiming I'm lying about what was said/saying I don't know what Shapiro's intent was), here's another article that hits the "bridging the gap" argument nail directly on the head - on the exact same topic.

 

And since it all but uses that same phrase in the description, I think that argument is dead: I'm clearly correct when I say that work which highlights the wrongness of Random Mututation as the director of evolution does indeed 'bridge the gap' between Creationist and Darwinist:

 

Meet Alfred Russel Wallace: Darwin's Co-founder

 

How Evolutionary Theory's Other Discoverer Could Heal the Darwin Divide

 

I had to break quotes here. Does that sound similar to my claim of "Bridging the Gap"? Of course it does.

 

By: David Klinghoffer

Washington Post

February 22, 2011

 

Original Washington Post Link

 

The seemingly ineradicable opinion divide on evolution calls to mind Mark Twain's quip that everyone talks about the weather, mostly to complain, but nobody does anything about it. Pro-Darwinian educators were frustrated this week to find that most public high school biology instructors in their teaching do not wholeheartedly endorse evolution. The teachers reflect a stubborn division across American culture. For the past three decades, Americans have been locked into a basically unchanging split of views on the subject, with only about 16 percent believing in Darwin's theory of unguided evolution.

 

Charles Darwin would have turned 200 in 2009. Will we still be having the same argument when he turns 300? Not, perhaps, if we take a lesson from evolutionary theory's founder. Or rather its other founder -- Darwin's less famous co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). The Welsh-born naturalist and adventurer could hold the key to dissolving much of the fractious furor over evolution.

 

Religious preferences or worldview commitments drive much of that debate. Putting Biblical literalists to one side, Darwin's materialism is the main philosophical objection to evolutionary theory. In its Darwinian version, evolution denies the possibility of discovering evidence that a supreme being guided life's history with a purpose in mind. The same is not true of Alfred Russel Wallace's understanding.

 

Darwin and Wallace went public with their theory of natural selection in 1858. Wallace spooked Darwin into doing so earlier than he wished when Wallace, the younger and less privileged and well connected of the two scientists, sent his senior colleague a letter from the Indonesian island of Ternate. In a swoon of malarial fever, Wallace had penned a brief outline of the evolutionary idea that Darwin had assumed would be his own exclusive claim on scientific immortality. Darwin received the missive, and panicked. Anxious that he not to be scooped, Darwin's well-heeled friends arranged for a joint presentation of the two men's formulations before the Linnean Society in London.

 

Lately Wallace's renown has enjoyed a revival with a spate of new biographies, most recent among them Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life by University of Alabama science historian Michael Flannery (who's also a colleague of mine with the Discovery Institute). Yet Wallace's thinking remains unfamiliar to most people. That's too bad because he wonderfully transcends the familiar, tiring and false dichotomy pitting evolution versus creationism, science versus religion.

 

Wallace never backed off from his original insight about how natural selection works. However, culminating in 1910 with his magnum opus, "The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose," he illuminated his own picture of evolution. The title of the book says it all. Wallace perceived that the world must be permeated by life and intelligence not perceptible directly to our senses but whose existence may be inferred from the biological phenomena that it shapes -- human consciousness above all, but also the intricate functioning of the living cell and the hemoglobin molecule, bird wings and feathers, butterfly coloration and insect metamorphosis and much more.

 

Beyond the "self-acting agency" of undirected evolution, he argued, there must be some "creative power," a "directive mind," and an "ultimate purpose." Wallace was not speaking about God. He rejected Christianity and all religious orthodoxy. He wrote, "To afford any rational explanation of [life's] phenomena, we require to postulate the continuous action and guidance of higher intelligences; and further, that these have probably been working towards a single end, the development of intellectual, moral, and spiritual beings."

 

After Wallace's death in 1913, his ideas were largely eclipsed, though they reflected more of the advanced science of their day than Darwin's did. Wallace lived for 30 years after Darwin died. Unlike Darwin, he survived to see dramatic advances in microscopy and cellular science that influenced his scientific perspective. In fact, from the middle 20th century on, fields as diverse as genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, taxonomy and cosmology have yielded their secrets and Wallace seems in the process of being vindicated.

 

His thinking seems more modern in other ways. While Darwin supplied a basis for later pseudo-scientific racism, inspiring eugenic movements in Europe and America, Wallace grew up poor and lived for years with supposedly primitive "Third World" peoples, praising their cultures as in some ways superior to European civilization. Wallace emphasized the dignity of all men and, as a committed socialist, agitated for political freedom and equality.

 

His view is not Biblical literalist creationism, certainly, nor intelligent design -- at least as the latter is portrayed by its critics. Professor Flannery calls it "intelligent evolution." There is no religious special pleading here, no surreptitious right-wing agenda. Wallace argued for evolution but of an altogether more enlightened and attractive kind than in Darwin's treatment.

 

His version, most importantly, allows human beings the hope that their physical lives bear the stamp of some eternal meaning. No one can claim to know the future of the argument about evolution. But if Wallace's conception were on the table, openly and explicitly, it would be a very different argument, more fruitful, less bitter and maybe less protracted.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Specified complexity is another argument from ignorance

 

I had to stop here, because "argument from ignorance" is just another way to say that "we do not know".

 

However, what we do know at the present supports the notion of Irreducible Complexity. Science is an affirmative process: we form theories based upon what we do know - and what we do know supports the the theory of IC.

 

You'd have to cede that much in scientific research could be accused of an "argument from ignorance" if you require knowing everything about something before you draw any hypotheses. Theories change due to not knowing something before, and then discovering it.

 

That doesn't make the process of forming a theory invalid; in fact it is the very process by which theories/knowledge strengthens, or are replaced. By making this claim (which you've gotten from ID critics), you're simply trying to stop the process of research, calling it invalid before it leaves the gate.

 

That is an example of Scientists doing exactly what they claim Christians would do: claiming that Christians say "God did it", and lose any desire to pursue the knowledge of 'how' and 'why' any farther.

[IMMensaMind 462]

The Martin Gaskell Case: Not an Isolated Incident

 

By: David Klinghoffer

National Review Online

January 1, 2011

 

 

Link to Original Article

 

In his January Diary, John Derbyshire comes down on the side of the University of Kentucky for refusing to hire Martin Gaskell, a superbly qualified astronomer, for the sole reason that he expressed sympathy for intelligent design. The case of Professor Gaskell, who sued UK for religious discrimination, needs to be understood in the context of widespread anti-Christian discrimination in academic science. I thought readers might be interested in some background on the story and many others like it to which Brother John did not draw our attention.

 

The University of Kentucky chose to pay a $125,000 settlement to Gaskell, now at the University of Texas, after Gaskell’s attorneys released records of e-mail traffic among the faculty hiring committee. Seeking a scientist to head UK’s observatory, professors complained that Gaskell was “potentially Evangelical,” while a lone astrophysicist on the committee protested that Gaskell stood to be rejected “despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant.”

 

This is no isolated incident. An enormous, largely hidden transformation has taken place in what we mean when we speak of “science.” For centuries, the free and unfettered scientific enterprise was fueled by a desire to know the mind of God. “The success of the West,” writes historian Rodney Stark in his important book The Victory of Reason, “including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.” Now, increasingly, voicing such a desire is likely to get you excluded from the guild of professional scientists.

 

For years, I’ve tracked the stories that come out regularly about scientists of impeccable credentials whose religion-friendly beliefs proved injurious to their career. In some fields, notably biology and cosmology, Christians who voice doubts about Darwinian theory pay a particularly high price.

 

Last month, a top-level computer specialist on the NASA’s Cassini mission to Saturn, David Coppedge, got fired after he sued JPL for religious discrimination. Coppedge had occasionally chatted with interested colleagues about the scientific case for intelligent design, which made good sense since JPL’s officially defined mission includes the exploration of questions relating to the origin and development of life on Earth and elsewhere. For this, his supervisor severely chastised him for “pushing religion” and humiliated and demoted him.

 

At Iowa State University, astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez was refused tenure, despite a spectacular research publication record, because of a book he co-authored arguing that life is no cosmic accident.

 

At the Smithsonian Institution, supervisors harshly penalized evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for editing a pro–intelligent design essay in a peer-reviewed technical-biology journal. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel examined the 2005 case, finding that Smithsonian colleagues investigated his religious beliefs and created a “hostile work environment” aimed at “forcing [him] out.”

 

Similar incidents have occurred at the University of Idaho, George Mason University, and Baylor University.

 

There is, in fact, an underground of Darwin-doubting scientists, fearful for their livelihoods, who believe that evidence from cell biology, cosmology, and paleontology tells an increasingly complicated and contradictory story about life’s evolution.

 

In every such instance I’m aware of, the suppressed scientist is a Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic.#more# Meanwhile, among members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, 95 percent of biologists identify as atheists or agnostics. The fact of their religious (or irreligious) beliefs doesn’t invalidate their scientific opinions. Nor should the religious belief of Christians cast their otherwise sterling scientific training and acumen into doubt. However, in academia, it is understood to do just that.

 

It’s bad enough when private universities clamp down on the free exchange of ideas. But government-run institutions have often seemed to be the worst offenders of all, something the First Amendment cannot permit. The public is poorly served by a system of scientific research and funding that seems locked into reaching predetermined conclusions.

 

Science has become a business like many others, unfortunately, and a largely nationalized one at that. Workers must toe a company line. With the government’s $7 billion National Science Foundation and $31 billion National Institutes of Health heavily supporting research, localized pressures easily take on the form of a universal compulsion to conform.

 

The search for truth should be unimpeded by such orthodoxies, whether religious or anti-religious. The scientists who initiated the scientific revolution itself, all Christians, knew that better than scientists, or John Derbyshire, do today.

[GettnHuge 2]

You're making it too complicated IMO, and throwing in a required conclusion (in your mind): if you want to call and mean that an Intelligence who designed life to work as it does is a "higher power", you can do so, but you skirt to the religious, and that's where ID has gotten in trouble. I'm really trying to have people understand that ID is no more religious than Darwinian Evolution, which also gets in trouble when Atheists glom on to its central tenet of random chaos.

 

Because what I write that Shapiro has written to me can be validated, and since it's obvious that nearly everyone (including you) constantly misconstrue (intentionally or otherwise) what I say and believe, I've decided that the best way to counter falsehoods is to merely bring up supported points as their statements stand in such stark contrast to what is claimed in this thread that there is no possible way anyone could deny mistaking intent.

 

This centers around people claiming that I do not understand what Shapiro's research actually means, or the whole "bridging the gap" thing. Speaking of bridging the gap (which is exactly what Shapiro's research does, despite the squeals from the other side claiming I'm lying about what was said/saying I don't know what Shapiro's intent was), here's another article that hits the "bridging the gap" argument nail directly on the head - on the exact same topic.

 

And since it all but uses that same phrase in the description, I think that argument is dead: I'm clearly correct when I say that work which highlights the wrongness of Random Mututation as the director of evolution does indeed 'bridge the gap' between Creationist and Darwinist:

 

Meet Alfred Russel Wallace: Darwin's Co-founder

 

 

 

I had to break quotes here. Does that sound similar to my claim of "Bridging the Gap"? Of course it does.

 

 

 

We could always go simple instead. link?

[IMMensaMind 462]

We could always go simple instead. link?

 

All in due time, anxious grasshopper. You will get your information. It will be by suppository, but you will get it.

 

That isn't to say that Shapiro is a public ID proponent: he's not (not in the sense that you were perhaps worried - but perhaps we could fight over the definition of the word proponent?). He's understood the problem with accrediting science with supernatural phenomena, but he's smart enough to realize the legitimacy of ID wrt to natural phenomena.

 

Due to his faith (ooh! another clue! ), however, he isn't exactly condemnational about the supernatural either - just not offically behind such a concept within the Scientific sphere.

 

Oh: required reading for anyone who is truly interested in the latest information about ID, and the arguments surrounding it.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

That isn't to say that Shapiro is a public ID proponent: he's not

 

Ahhh so you are in the process of lowering expectations in a poor attempt to bridge the gap between what you wanted to hear

and what you allegedly did get.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ahhh so you are in the process of lowering expectations in a poor attempt to bridge the gap between what you wanted to hear

and what you allegedly did get.

 

Since I wrote in a post several pages ago that Shapiro isn't a proponent of ID, I think you'd better check to see that you know WTF you're talking about.

 

itsatip: you don't.

[GettnHuge 2]

Since I wrote in a post several pages ago that Shapiro isn't a proponent of ID, I think you'd better check to see that you know WTF you're talking about.

 

itsatip: you don't.

 

We've had 25 pages to see how you say one thing, and then another. Attach words to someone that do not apply. Expound on something,

and then suddenly become unable to back it up. Avoid simple questions. Answer questions that were never even asked. And then disparage

women all along the way while at the same time demanding respect. This is like dealing with someone who has a mental illness.

[IMMensaMind 462]

We've had 25 pages to see how you say one thing, and then another. Attach words to someone that do not apply. Expound on something,

and then suddenly become unable to back it up. Avoid simple questions. Answer questions that were never even asked. And then disparage

women all along the way while at the same time demanding respect. This is like dealing with someone who has a mental illness.

 

No: this is your reading comprehension problem. You aren't paying attention. It's epidemic in here; you're infected.

[GettnHuge 2]

No: this is your reading comprehension problem. You aren't paying attention. It's epidemic in here; you're infected.

 

And that repeated slapping that you feel is from my highly evolved immune system.

[IMMensaMind 462]

And that repeated slapping that you feel is from my highly evolved immune system.

 

I thought it was a mosquito. Learn anything about cellular function, and how it counters decades long BS teach in here?

[GettnHuge 2]

I thought it was a mosquito. Learn anything about cellular function, and how it counters decades long BS teach in here?

 

Ahh the mosquito. culicidae. Deadliest creature on earth.

Thank you, for once you're correct, even if by accident.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ahh the mosquito. culicidae. Deadliest creature on earth.

Thank you, for once you're correct, even if by accident.

 

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

You're making it too complicated IMO

This is confusing because creationism and ID have been used interchangeably throughout the topic, while words like spiritual, eternal stamp and designer are substituted for Christianity, eternal life and God in posts/links you have provided in support of ID. Meanwhile, "leaders" in the field of ID spew verbose, circular explanations and probability equations that none of us understand in lieu of the simple assertion that the complexity of life isn't fully explained by science alone. Your vacillating stance on Shapiro's support/lack of support for ID doesn't help matters, nor does withholding details of his revelatory e-mail (to you, though Nikki's was very enlightening).

 

The non-scientific leap in ID is the stipulation of a designer in these matters. No matter how well a thesaurus is wielded, lack of testable proof for this assertion makes ID pseudoscience. Because the public, including some science teachers in an overwhelmingly Christian nation believes in a higher power does not make it science. To be clear, the opinions expressed by ID as an alternative to evolution - another confusing point, when you dismiss random mutation's role in our development while simultaneously arguing ID is complementary to evolution, are not held by the majority of the scientific community worldwide: wikipedia link on level of evolution support

 

Keeping ID out of science class is no more a conspiracy than ignoring physics in Sunday school. I don't think anyone in this thread wants to deny your belief in a higher power, we just want to avoid mixing supernatural with natural in public school under the moniker of science.

[GettnHuge 2]

This is confusing because creationism and ID have been used interchangeably throughout the topic, while words like spiritual, eternal stamp and designer are substituted for Christianity, eternal life and God in posts/links you have provided in support of ID. Meanwhile, "leaders" in the field of ID spew verbose, circular explanations and probability equations that none of us understand in lieu of the simple assertion that the complexity of life isn't fully explained by science alone. Your vacillating stance on Shapiro's support/lack of support for ID doesn't help matters, nor does withholding details of his revelatory e-mail (to you, though Nikki's was very enlightening).

 

The non-scientific leap in ID is the stipulation of a designer in these matters. No matter how well a thesaurus is wielded, lack of testable proof for this assertion makes ID pseudoscience. Because the public, including some science teachers in an overwhelmingly Christian nation believes in a higher power does not make it science. To be clear, the opinions expressed by ID as an alternative to evolution - another confusing point, when you dismiss random mutation's role in our development while simultaneously arguing ID is complementary to evolution, are not held by the majority of the scientific community worldwide: wikipedia link on level of evolution support

 

Keeping ID out of science class is no more a conspiracy than ignoring physics in Sunday school. I don't think anyone in this thread wants to deny your belief in a higher power, we just want to avoid mixing supernatural with natural in public school under the moniker of science.

 

Post of the week. You didn't even leave a scrap for the rest of us. This is just total and utter destruction.

[IMMensaMind 462]

This is confusing because creationism and ID have been used interchangeably throughout the topic, while words like spiritual, eternal stamp and designer are substituted for Christianity, eternal life and God in posts/links you have provided in support of ID. Meanwhile, "leaders" in the field of ID spew verbose, circular explanations and probability equations that none of us understand in lieu of the simple assertion that the complexity of life isn't fully explained by science alone. Your vacillating stance on Shapiro's support/lack of support for ID doesn't help matters, nor does withholding details of his revelatory e-mail (to you, though Nikki's was very enlightening).

 

Nikki's email withheld the questions she asked. I asked better questions. I'm not vacillating on Shapiro's position whatsoever; any confusion about my position wrt Shapiro has been obfuscated by people talking right past what I've said.

 

I've said:

 

1) Shapiro himself has stayed above the fray wrt to ID; preferring instead to allow his research to do the talking for him.

 

2) Shapiro's research "bridges the gap" between Creationist and Darwinist (though I wasn't addressing the strident wacko Creationist who believes in literal Biblical translation and rejects the veracity of scientific knowledge without cause: that doesn't make sense to me)

 

3) Shapiro's research validates a personal opinion that I have held for a very long time, in that Darwinian Chaos is not the motivator of Evolution. He agrees, which is why he's directly attacked neo-Darwinism (as he attacks Creationists who won't even listen to a single thing Science has to offer).

 

4) I believe Shapiro's personal views are deistic, but he's not allowed to go there while wearing his white smock.

 

5) Perry Marshall's MS-DOS analogy is very good, because that is exactly what cellular intelligent programming is able to do: self-correct and adapt.

 

The non-scientific leap in ID is the stipulation of a designer in these matters.

 

It is not non-scientific. There is nothing wrong with mathematically inducing intelligent design in objects which display intelligence, and a design. Is that simple observation too profound or something?

 

It's illogical to not conclude that - as your basic premise - and then allow Science all the research it cares to engage in to prove otherwise. ID offers a priori testable hypothesis: life is designed. It is because observationally, it corroborates everything we know about design: Complex Specificity.

 

Science has been unable to crack that claim, so the claim itself is falsifiable and testable.

 

No tests have refuted it, is all.

 

I've posted many articles which explain why, and do so very clearly. It is only "non" scientific because of dogmatic atheism within Science which has skewed its paradigms. These require correcting.

 

No matter how well a thesaurus is wielded, lack of testable proof for this assertion makes ID pseudoscience.

 

I've also posted testability. Again, people aren't even willing to consider what they're seeing. I've also posted articles which very clearly explain that if Science attempts to disqualify ID on these grounds, it also disqualifies itself.

 

Because the public, including some science teachers in an overwhelmingly Christian nation believes in a higher power does not make it science.

 

I believe those in Science who hold this belief actually hold an irrational position. You are literally saying that there are something which Science cannot help with, and - if that's the case - you need to broaden the boundaries which you've self-imposed (like I've said earlier; like articles have explained in depth).

 

To be clear, the opinions expressed by ID as an alternative to evolution - another confusing point, when you dismiss random mutation's role in our development while simultaneously arguing ID is complementary to evolution, are not held by the majority of the scientific community worldwide: wikipedia link on level of evolution support

 

I hold no stock in what the majority believes; it is non sequitur. By that standard, no adaptation would ever take place.

 

Keeping ID out of science class is no more a conspiracy than ignoring physics in Sunday school. I don't think anyone in this thread wants to deny your belief in a higher power, we just want to avoid mixing supernatural with natural in public school under the moniker of science.

 

No, it's different. ID doesn't require supernatural anything; those are words put in ID's mouth by people with an agenda.

[nikki2200 4]

No, it's different. ID doesn't require supernatural anything; those are words put in ID's mouth by people with an agenda.

 

If ID isn't supernatural, then who the FOCK is the designer?

 

And who the fock is witholding anything. You never asked to see the e-mail which I clearly said I wouldn't have a problem forwarding to anyone if they wanted. You just make shiit up as you go along.

 

Dear Dr. Shapiro- I'm sorry to bother you but I have hopefully a quick question. It seems your work has been cited as of late in support of Intelligent Design. I've read through your studies and "A Third Way" and I must admit that I'm having a difficult time connecting your work to ID.

If you have time to answer what your thoughts are on this, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Nicole

[GettnHuge 2]

Nikki's email withheld the questions she asked. I asked better questions. I'm not vacillating on Shapiro's position whatsoever; any confusion about my position wrt Shapiro has been obfuscated by people talking right past what I've said.

 

I've said:

 

1) Shapiro himself has stayed above the fray wrt to ID; preferring instead to allow his research to do the talking for him.

 

2) Shapiro's research "bridges the gap" between Creationist and Darwinist (though I wasn't addressing the strident wacko Creationist who believes in literal Biblical translation and rejects the veracity of scientific knowledge without cause: that doesn't make sense to me)

 

3) Shapiro's research validates a personal opinion that I have held for a very long time, in that Darwinian Chaos is not the motivator of Evolution. He agrees, which is why he's directly attacked neo-Darwinism (as he attacks Creationists who won't even listen to a single thing Science has to offer).

 

4) I believe Shapiro's personal views are deistic, but he's not allowed to go there while wearing his white smock.

 

5) Perry Marshall's MS-DOS analogy is very good, because that is exactly what cellular intelligent programming is able to do: self-correct and adapt.

 

 

 

It is not non-scientific. There is nothing wrong with mathematically inducing intelligent design in objects which display intelligence, and a design. Is that simple observation too profound or something?

 

It's illogical to not conclude that - as your basic premise - and then allow Science all the research it cares to engage in to prove otherwise. ID offers a priori testable hypothesis: life is designed. It is because observationally, it corroborates everything we know about design: Complex Specificity.

 

Science has been unable to crack that claim, so the claim itself is falsifiable and testable.

 

No tests have refuted it, is all.

 

I've posted many articles which explain why, and do so very clearly. It is only "non" scientific because of dogmatic atheism within Science which has skewed its paradigms. These require correcting.

 

 

 

I've also posted testability. Again, people aren't even willing to consider what they're seeing. I've also posted articles which very clearly explain that if Science attempts to disqualify ID on these grounds, it also disqualifies itself.

 

 

 

I believe those in Science who hold this belief actually hold an irrational position. You are literally saying that there are something which Science cannot help with, and - if that's the case - you need to broaden the boundaries which you've self-imposed (like I've said earlier; like articles have explained in depth).

 

 

 

I hold no stock in what the majority believes; it is non sequitur. By that standard, no adaptation would ever take place.

 

 

 

No, it's different. ID doesn't require supernatural anything; those are words put in ID's mouth by people with an agenda.

 

[imdensamind] Ok look, I know what Shapiro believes, may fly in the face of everything I am preaching here. But if you take a statement

about a statement about a statement that he made - about some other nut's statement, fold it in half - turn it upside down - rub it between

your hands - write numbers all over it with a No2 pencil - then unfold it in the proper order. It validates nothing that I stand for, but I'm

going to announce to you all that it fully and completely supports me anyway. Which makes me a winner. [/imdensamind]

[penultimatestraw 473]

It is not non-scientific. There is nothing wrong with mathematically inducing intelligent design in objects which display intelligence, and a design. Is that simple observation too profound or something?

It is wrong when the mathematical model arbitrarily assigns probability to a complex, multifaceted process with an inordinate number of variables.

 

ID offers a priori testable hypothesis: life is designed. It is because observationally, it corroborates everything we know about design: Complex Specificity.

 

Science has been unable to crack that claim, so the claim itself is falsifiable and testable.

 

No tests have refuted it, is all.

Observation <> testability. All the "tests" you have provided rely on false premises, most of them teleologic. By their very nature they are irrefutable. That doesn't mean they are true.

 

I've posted many articles which explain why, and do so very clearly. It is only "non" scientific because of dogmatic atheism within Science which has skewed its paradigms. These require correcting.

 

I believe those in Science who hold this belief actually hold an irrational position. You are literally saying that there are something which Science cannot help with, and - if that's the case - you need to broaden the boundaries which you've self-imposed (like I've said earlier; like articles have explained in depth)

So atheism within science skews the paradigms, while religious scientists are irrational? Seems like the only "science" you accept is that created by the religious, for the religious.

 

I hold no stock in what the majority believes; it is non sequitur. By that standard, no adaptation would ever take place

The link you posted described the majority of science teachers not supporting evolution as taught before it reiterated the ID dogma; I guess only the latter was your point. As an aside, the ignorance of our country is terrifying.

 

No, it's different. ID doesn't require supernatural anything; those are words put in ID's mouth by people with an agenda.

I second Nikki's request: Who/what is the natural designer?

[Gepetto 1,297]

Specified complexity is another argument from ignorance, like irreducible complexity, which relies on mathematical models where Dembski defines a limit on what can occur by random chance alone (mutation causing genetic drift). It ignores the driving force of natural selection (a product of the organism AND the environment - perhaps the latter is your "creator') in Darwinian evolution. There are nearly infinite variables in the equation needed to determine the chance of your eye (as part of an organism) arising from the primordial soup. Not knowing an equation which accounts for all these variables is not a proxy for god/God/creator IMO. Though I have a post-graduate degree in science, I don't pretend to understand all the equations in the papers you cite, so it is hard to critique them specifically. What is your background in mathematics Mensa? Do you truly understand the model in the papers? If so, please explain it for the shallow thinkers trolling this thread, myself included.

 

To be fair, you've taught me a lot about the lexicon of ID. Unfortunately, you still haven't described a credible experiment which provides reproducible data supporting ID's hypothesis. They all rely on the teleologic conclusion that biological phenomena which cannot be completely explained (now), can reasonably only be expected to occur because of a higher power. On the other hand, if you'd like reproducible scientific evidence of evolution in a rapidly replicating organism, all you need is a a few HIV virions, antiviral drugs and cell culture, as I described ~20 pages ago.

 

Posting the nebulous Shapiro email + messages of support from the FF masses would bolster your credibility in this thread. If you want to convince people of your position, it seems odd to withhold these tidbits. If you are convinced none of us will believe/discredit you anyway, why are you arguing at all?

 

Natural selection does not account for speciation and the theory of evolution does not prove by scientific experiment speciation or macroevolution. So what you're arguing for is currently no more acceptable or possible than ID. Also, HIV is a virus and questionable if it even should be considered life. An HIV virion is NOT an ORGANISM.

 

[Gepetto 1,297]

I second Nikki's request: Who/what is the natural designer?

 

It is too big of a leap to ask that question yet, scientifically speaking.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Natural selection does not account for speciation and the theory of evolution does not prove by scientific experiment speciation or macroevolution. So what you're arguing for is currently no more acceptable or possible than ID. Also, HIV is a virus and questionable if it even should be considered life. An HIV virion is NOT an ORGANISM.

 

Fair enough, I realize there is controversy regarding classifying viruses as living organisms - my bad. They are a great model of evolution within populations nonetheless. You can substitute bacteria and antibiotics for the experiment I described (I think Nikki has done this somewhere in the thread) to prove the same point, Linnaeus. Speciation/macroevolution needs a much longer timeline, utilizing indirect evidence from transitional fossils to bolster the argument. But there are observational studies and experiments on these topics, too, listed by FeelingMN pages ago. Or google observed speciation and pick a link. One example in fungi

[penultimatestraw 473]

It is too big of a leap to ask that question yet, scientifically speaking.

It sure is important for understanding whether ID is natural or supernatural, dontchathink?